Prism and Verizon surveillance discussion thread

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe.  Or maybe they just gave us a big "FUCK WITH ME" button.

Yeah. You know how much I care about the digital kind of privacy, it's been something I've been quite passionate about for quite a while, and, well, I only read about the XKeyScore thing yesterday, shit indeed just got real, literally, and I'm gonna need a bit of time to come to terms with the fact that it in fact really is as bad as I've always preached it was. Hopefully that'll just be a few days As far as I could tell you've had similar revelations in the past about different topics, no? It's a rollercoaster ride that just goes down, apparently.

There's an obvious solution, but I'm not sure how you'd put it into practice.  It's as old as Winston Churchhill.

Flood 'em.  Drown them in information, most of which is plausible garbage.

Can it be flooded? How many people would have to type how many convincing lies over how long to upset this number crunching beast? How many websites would it take to slow down Google?

See, that's the part I don't know how to do, because I am not computer literate.

But maybe you don't have to be.  It wouldn't be too hard to bollux the system...Hang on, I am in grave danger of having an idea, here.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Maybe.  Or maybe they just gave us a big "FUCK WITH ME" button.

Yeah. You know how much I care about the digital kind of privacy, it's been something I've been quite passionate about for quite a while, and, well, I only read about the XKeyScore thing yesterday, shit indeed just got real, literally, and I'm gonna need a bit of time to come to terms with the fact that it in fact really is as bad as I've always preached it was. Hopefully that'll just be a few days As far as I could tell you've had similar revelations in the past about different topics, no? It's a rollercoaster ride that just goes down, apparently.

There's an obvious solution, but I'm not sure how you'd put it into practice.  It's as old as Winston Churchhill.

Flood 'em.  Drown them in information, most of which is plausible garbage.

Can it be flooded? How many people would have to type how many convincing lies over how long to upset this number crunching beast? How many websites would it take to slow down Google?

See, that's the part I don't know how to do, because I am not computer literate.

But maybe you don't have to be.  It wouldn't be too hard to bollux the system...Hang on, I am in grave danger of having an idea, here.

I'm not convinced flooding them would be either possible or effective. Judging by 2011 numbers, the amount of data that traverses American networks alone -- each second -- is equivalent to about 21 million average-sized email messages. The NSA is completely undaunted by this volume of data. Even if you could substantially increase the volume of data, making the haystack bigger doesn't do much good when you're dealing with someone who's looking for needles with an X-Ray camera.

The algorithms that scan and retain information on people don't just look for keywords and flag conversations. They track interactions and contact networks, evaluate probabilities and keep tabs dependably not only on what people do online, but who they are. Spamming up the works by firing off random page views or downloads, or shifting your browsing history, or making a bunch of noisy interactions with people you don't have a history of talking to isn't going to do much good.

I like the ideas presented in Cain's quote a lot more, where one practices complete compartmentalization and physical separation between one's "normal" online persona and his/her potentially "subversive" one.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe.  Or maybe they just gave us a big "FUCK WITH ME" button.

Yeah. You know how much I care about the digital kind of privacy, it's been something I've been quite passionate about for quite a while, and, well, I only read about the XKeyScore thing yesterday, shit indeed just got real, literally, and I'm gonna need a bit of time to come to terms with the fact that it in fact really is as bad as I've always preached it was. Hopefully that'll just be a few days As far as I could tell you've had similar revelations in the past about different topics, no? It's a rollercoaster ride that just goes down, apparently.

There's an obvious solution, but I'm not sure how you'd put it into practice.  It's as old as Winston Churchhill.

Flood 'em.  Drown them in information, most of which is plausible garbage.

Can it be flooded? How many people would have to type how many convincing lies over how long to upset this number crunching beast? How many websites would it take to slow down Google?

See, that's the part I don't know how to do, because I am not computer literate.

But maybe you don't have to be.  It wouldn't be too hard to bollux the system...Hang on, I am in grave danger of having an idea, here.

I'm not convinced flooding them would be either possible or effective. Judging by 2011 numbers, the amount of data that traverses American networks alone -- each second -- is equivalent to about 21 million average-sized email messages. The NSA is completely undaunted by this volume of data. Even if you could substantially increase the volume of data, making the haystack bigger doesn't do much good when you're dealing with someone who's looking for needles with an X-Ray camera.

The algorithms that scan and retain information on people don't just look for keywords and flag conversations. They track interactions and contact networks, evaluate probabilities and keep tabs dependably not only on what people do online, but who they are. Spamming up the works by firing off random page views or downloads, or shifting your browsing history, or making a bunch of noisy interactions with people you don't have a history of talking to isn't going to do much good.

I like the ideas presented in Cain's quote a lot more, where one practices complete compartmentalization and physical separation between one's "normal" online persona and his/her potentially "subversive" one.

Well, I could have phrased that better.  Flood them with bad information, not overload the system.

[Cain]

Even flooding them with bad information may be tricky.  I mean, the system is taking in everything.  While I'm not adverse to them having some stuff that is definitely wrong, if a good 98%* of it is accurate, then it can probably be used to filter out the 2% that is not.

*number pulled entirely out of my arse.

[Pæs]

Basically, my fear is that if these systems are designed to pull signal from noise where THE ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET is the noise... they probably aren't going to be phased by any increase in noise that we can manufacture.

EDIT: They probably won't be fazed, either.

[Pæs]

This is the only way to fight the surveillance.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is the only way to fight the surveillance.

That's cute. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Basically, my fear is that if these systems are designed to pull signal from noise where THE ENTIRE REST OF THE INTERNET is the noise... they probably aren't going to be phased by any increase in noise that we can manufacture.

I have a pretty strong feeling (where "feeling" is based on "everyone I came of age phreaking with") that the government agencies interested in surveillance aren't as naive as we wish they were, or as they in fact were until this lovely decade.

[Cain]

AHAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHA.

HA.

HA.

*dies*

The US has criticised a new internet decree in Vietnam that would restrict online users from discussing current affairs.

The law, announced last week and due to come into force in September, says social media should only be used for "[exchanging] personal information".

The US embassy in Hanoi said it was "deeply concerned" by the decree.

Vietnam has convicted at least 46 activists, including bloggers, for anti-state activity this year.

The law, known as Decree 72, bans the online publication of material that "opposes" the Vietnamese government or "harms national security".

Silly Vietnamese, information on the internet is to be shared freely, so that surveillance agencies can carry out international dragnets for useful data.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

AHAHAHAHAHA.

HAHAHAHA.

HA.

HA.

*dies*

The US has criticised a new internet decree in Vietnam that would restrict online users from discussing current affairs.

The law, announced last week and due to come into force in September, says social media should only be used for "[exchanging] personal information".

The US embassy in Hanoi said it was "deeply concerned" by the decree.

Vietnam has convicted at least 46 activists, including bloggers, for anti-state activity this year.

The law, known as Decree 72, bans the online publication of material that "opposes" the Vietnamese government or "harms national security".

Silly Vietnamese, information on the internet is to be shared freely, so that surveillance agencies can carry out international dragnets for useful data.

Nope. I see nothing ironic here
          \\

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/fbi-hacking-squad-used-domestic-investigations-experts-say-6C10851882

[Cain]

Remember kids, when Manning and Snowden disclose the existence of illegal programs and war crimes, that's "treason", because it aids the enemy.

When the US government discloses it is directly listening to the communications between the leader of Al-Qaeda and AQ in Yemen to the press, that is different because, uh, fuck you.

Edit: spelling error.

[Faust]

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/cyberscare_ex_nsa_chief_calls_transparency_groups_hackers_next_terrorists/singleton/

Well I always knew this day one come:

When history remembers that 4chan did 911.

[Cain]

BBC's reporting that the evacuation of Yemen's embassy is possibly a cover for JSOC putting a team in the country.

Would make sense - put them on the C17 over, drop them off under the cover of darkness, leave with the Embassy staff at dawn.  Which is what happened.  But who's the target?  Nasir al-Wuhayshi?